2011Action demanding cancellation, such as disposition for cancellation of recognition, 28059

ENFIS Co., Ltd.

The Head of the Gangnam-gu Office of Employment and Labor

October 11, 2012

November 8, 2012

1. The revocation of recognition of vocational skills development training courses conducted by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on May 26, 201, and the revocation of recognition, and the entrustment of and restriction on recognition for the relevant courses for six months, and the revocation of recognition, and the entrustment of and restriction on recognition for the relevant courses for six months, and the disposition of restricting recognition, and the disposition of ordering return of KRW 89,593,50 and the disposition of imposing additional collection amounting to KRW 89,59,593,50, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff was a stock company with the purpose of corporate consignment education, job training, etc., and operated six training courses for supporting employees’ ability development cards, such as sales compliance improvement process and counseling compliance for improving business performance.

B. The Plaintiff was conducted from September 14, 2010 to November 20, 2010 with respect to the above training courses for employees, etc. of Ebrid Co., Ltd., and received totaling KRW 89,593,500 from the Defendant. The Plaintiff was issued a disposition of cancellation of recognition as of May 26, 201 and a disposition of restriction on consignment and recognition (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on the following grounds:

A person shall be appointed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In each of the instant dispositions, the Defendant did not specify what the relevant process of the instant disposition is entrusted and recognized, and it did not clarify the relationship between the entire process entrusted and recognized restriction disposition and the relevant process entrusted and recognized restriction disposition, and thus, the disposition is not specified. The grounds for each disposition were not presented properly.

(2) In the instant case, some trainees did not have a worker’s ability development card, and there was a change in the training days, but the Plaintiff conducted the actual training, and filed a voluntary report on the matters for which the substitute attendance was confirmed, and each of the instant dispositions was erroneous in the misapprehension of the basic facts of the disposition, and was abused or abused by the discretionary authority.

(b) Applicable provisions;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that "When an administrative agency conducts a disposition, it shall present the basis and reasons for the disposition." Accordingly, an administrative agency shall enter the facts underlying Acts and subordinate statutes or a written disposition in the written disposition to the extent that the appeal of dissatisfaction by the other party to the disposition is not impeded. In light of the developments leading up to the disposition and the circumstances in the procedure of the disposition, etc., where the other party to the disposition can clearly recognize the meaning of the disposition through his experience, knowledge, or whole process, and there is no problem in deciding whether to object of dissatisfaction or determining whether to object of dissatisfaction, there is an error in violation of the grounds for revocation even though the grounds for the disposition stated in the written disposition are somewhat abstract or flexible terms. However, even in light of such circumstances, if it is impossible to specify the disposition to be appealed by the party or it is difficult to clearly identify what contents and thus it does not hinder the determination of the object of dissatisfaction, such a disposition is not specified, and if there is a serious defect in procedural grounds for violation of Article 23(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(2) If the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant case is deemed to have been carried out on the basis of the instant disposition (No. 2, No. 5) and the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant case, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to view that there were three separate measures such as cancellation of recognition regarding workplace skill development training courses and recognition restriction, cancellation of recognition and six months, and restriction on recognition of the instant training course, and that there were three separate measures such as notification of the instant case’s disposal of the instant case’s disposal of the instant case’s disposal of the instant case’s disposal of the instant case’s disposal of the instant case’s disposal of the instant case’s disposal of the instant case’s 0-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-6-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7.

(3) Ultimately, each of the dispositions of this case is difficult to clearly identify what kind of disposition the Plaintiff is, and thus, it is hindered to determine whether to appeal and determine the subject of appeal, and it also infringes on the period of appeal. As such, it is difficult to avoid revocation on the ground that there is a serious procedural defect in violation of Articles 23(1) and 24 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful, so it is decided as per Disposition by the cancellation of all of them.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Cho Byung-gu

Judges Regularly

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.